INTENDED
APPOINTMENTS
TOM REID
CONTENTS
Wednesday 14 May 1997
Subcommittee reports
Intended appointments
Mr Tom Reid
Mr Jeffery Lyons
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président: Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean PC)
Mr RickBartolucci (Sudbury L)
Mrs BrendaElliott (Guelph PC)
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
Mr MichaelGravelle (Port Arthur L)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
Mr BertJohnson (Perth PC)
Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr FloydLaughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Mr FrankMiclash (Kenora L)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mr TonySilipo (Dovercourt ND)
Mr R. GaryStewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre PC)
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr MarcelBeaubien (Lambton PC)
Also taking part /Autre participant:
Mr BruceCrozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
Clerk / Greffier: Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel: Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1003 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): The standing committee will come to order. There are two subcommittee reports to deal with. The first one, dated May 2, is to review Tom Reid's appointment to the Ontario Lottery Corp and the appointment of Jeffery Lyons to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board. Mr Lyons was selected by both the official opposition and the New Democrats. On the subcommittee report of May 9, no persons were selected, which means we will not have to meet next week, but it's constituency week anyway. We'll see what cabinet does this week and, when we get the names, whether we meet the first week back, the week of May 26.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I move adoption of the minutes for both May 2 and May 9.
The Chair: You've heard the motion. In favour? Carried. Thank you for that.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
TOM REID
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party: Tom Reid, intended appointee as chair, Ontario Lottery Corp.
The Chair: Mr Reid, we welcome you to the committee and we appreciate your attendance here. Mr Reid, just so the members know, bought me one time at a lottery for the United Way, so we go back a ways. Thank you for coming. If you want to make any opening remarks, now is the time to do it.
Mr Tom Reid: No, I think not. I'll just go to query, if that's fine with you, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Yes, that's fine. We'll go directly into questions then. Do the government members have any questions?
Mr Baird: We defer to our good colleagues in the official opposition.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Good morning. A lot has been written and talked about with respect to the introduction of VLTs, video lottery terminals, or as I think the public more appropriately understands what they are, video slot machines. Do you have any comments or concerns you would like to share with us with regard to the introduction of VLTs in Ontario?
Mr Reid: Are you asking me the question as a citizen of Ontario or --
Mr Crozier: I guess you're both a citizen and you're going to be the chair of the lottery commission.
Mr Reid: I can give you some comments if you like. Just to be clear, as I understand it, there will be a separate chair and a separate board and a separate role and mandate for the VLTs rollout. While the lottery corporation I guess is sort of the papa bear corporation, it'll really be the baby bear that will be rolling out the VLTs.
Mr Crozier: I'm not aware of that, but perhaps you can share that with us too.
Mr Reid: That may be conjecture on my part. But from a personal standpoint, I was asked the question when I joined the board about a year ago -- in June, I think -- when I visited, and I still say the same thing. As long as it's well studied, as long as it's rolled out in an appropriately slow-quick fashion as well as being put into enclosed environments so that youth can't get at them, that there's some discipline put into it, that the gaming commission has a role in licensing and those types of things, in other words, if it is done in a very correct fashion, then I think the rollout and implementation could be well done.
If, on the other hand, there are some people who are affected by it in a negative way, then as I understand it, the government intends to fund rehabilitation programs or a health care program, whatever it might be properly titled. If that is truly done and the problem is minimalized as best one can, and if the flow of funds go to the benefit of the citizenry in the province, then I think in an environment, if the majority wishes it to be, it will go in as well as one could hope to put it in. That would be my personal feeling on it.
Mr Crozier: Mr Reid, you started out by saying there's going to be a separate body that's going to handle the introduction of VLTs, and then you suggested that might be conjecture on your part. Do you know whether there's going to be, or is this some wild speculation?
Mr Reid: I guess I approach it as a businessman would. If I were putting in a new product line, I'd tend to make sure I had someone specifically looking after that product line.
Mr Crozier: I guess I might do that too, but is the government going to do that? I'm asking you directly: Do you know if it's going to be handled by a separate body?
Mr Reid: No, I do not know specifically and factually.
Mr Crozier: Has it been suggested to you by someone that it will be?
Mr Reid: Just in the management discussions with the people at the OLC there have been several scenarios painted of the possible way to roll it out properly. We're having a scenario dialogue.
Mr Crozier: When you talked about the introduction of VLTs and their control and as long as it's done properly, I make a parallel comparison. We used to have cigarette machines that were publicly available. It was found that they were difficult, if not impossible, to control because a machine doesn't look at your birth certificate, particularly with the youth. Why is it you're more comfortable with the introduction of these slot machines in every bar and restaurant on every corner on every street in Ontario, that we are able to control them any better than we could control cigarette machines?
Mr Reid: I don't smoke so I know nothing about vending machines and I can't comment on that, and that's yesterday's history so I wouldn't comment on it anyway.
Mr Crozier: Chocolate bars then.
Mr Reid: Talking about the VLTs, as I understand it, they're not going to be on every street corner. They're going into controlled environments. They're going into racetracks perhaps, they're going to hospitalities, as I understand it, those with a tendency to have controlled environments that would be licensed by the gaming commission, one would assume, and therefore age restrictions would apply and responsibility on the operators of those establishments would be the same as it is today for the control of a liquor licence. I don't know that to be true, but one would think that would probably be the path that would be followed.
1010
Mr Crozier: My colleagues may have some questions.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Thank you, Mr Reid, for your answers so far. Could I just follow up on your scenario discussions? Who have they been with in regard to the baby organization of VLTs? You said you carried on some scenario discussions.
Mr Reid: As board members of the OLC, when the VLTs were envisaged, if you could put it that way, you naturally start to have scenario discussions, if we have a role in that, how will we roll it out. The board has talked about it, the management team has talked about it and have actually some mind to how that might be. So it's preparedness dialogues.
Mr Bartolucci: Have you talked to any minister about that or has any minister talked to you about that?
Mr Reid: I have not talked to any minister about it.
Mr Bartolucci: Any minister staffers talked to you about that or you've talked to them about that?
Mr Reid: No.
Mr Bartolucci: No parliamentary assistants? In other words, you haven't talked to any politicians and no politicians have talked to you about that scenario?
Mr Reid: So far, I'm clear.
Mr Bartolucci: So far. All right. Let's talk a little bit about privatization. We've seen over the course of the last little while that the number of staff at OLC has declined. Are you in favour of privatization of the Ontario Lottery Corp?
Mr Reid: In toto?
Mr Bartolucci: Yes.
Mr Reid: Probably not. I don't think you could do it if you wanted to. Under the Criminal Code if you have responsibility for conduct and management of the lottery business, you couldn't privatize it in toto if you wanted to. If an examination of today and what the next decade will require in the sense of revenue production, free cash flow to fund the Trillium, the hospitals and that type of thing, the corporation could better use outsourcing of some of its components, I think it would be a responsibility of management and the board to have a look at those things.
Mr Bartolucci: Do you think it would be critical before this were ever to take place that impact studies be done on the communities affected most directly by the Ontario Lottery Corp? I'm suggesting here Sault Ste Marie in particular.
Mr Reid: I don't know much about impact studies. I'm not an expert in that field, so I'd have to defer to your thoughts.
Mr Bartolucci: With your extensive business background, I know or I would assume you've used impact studies quite extensively in the business world. I was in a small business for a few years and I used impact studies and I was really a small fish. You were involved with a bigger fish, and I know that impact studies were used by the corporation. So do you not suggest that it would be wise to do an impact study on a community such as Sault Ste Marie before any privatization on the operating side takes place?
Mr Reid: Two halves, I guess, or a three-part answer, if I may. One, back to the big corporation, generally we would not do impact studies. We would do more site location studies. As we were looking at a new venue, we were looking at demographics of opportunity. We'd do those kinds of things. But generally using an impact study the tendency is to understand what has to happen for the shareholder and you make the business decision within that criterion.
The second part of the answer is, I don't know yet what size of opportunity there is for, as you say, outsourcing or making change. I think to do an impact study would be relative to the size of the ultimate impact, whether you would or you wouldn't.
Mr Bartolucci: You would suggest, though, that the shareholders of the OLC are in fact the taxpayers of Ontario and therefore directly impact on the taxpayer of Sault Ste Marie because it's a significant part of the economic base of that particular city.
Mr Reid: I agree the shareholders of the OLC are the taxpayers of Ontario.
Mr Bartolucci: Then if it's going to impact on the shareholders, it's going to impact on the taxpayer, and it's going to impact most directly on the taxpayer in Sault Ste Marie because it's a major employment opportunity in Sault Ste Marie.
Mr Reid: To the degree I understand where you're ultimately trying to go with the question, I think it's a sense of the total impact: to take it singularly as you're doing about doing an impact study solely on Sault Ste Marie and if there is a change and there were some people's jobs lost, ergo it impacts the taxpayer because it takes away their income stream, their ability to pay tax or earn income.
On the other hand, if in the doing of that there's a multiple contribution to the people of Ontario that is fivefold, tenfold, 20-fold, who knows the number, in balance for the citizenry of Ontario, the winner is the citizen, the taxpayer. I can understand the concern about some impact here and the impact in a negative way on tax base and the citizenry, but if it produces a multiple positive for that same set of citizens, then I think there might have to be a balanced decision made.
Mr Bartolucci: I'm not going to disagree with everything you said, but I would suggest that in order to find out one would have to do that type of study to ensure that one could fairly make that choice, and if that weren't done, I don't know what other way you could honestly and fairly balance off in which direction the operating side should go. I think you have to do extensive studies. Maybe we'll agree to disagree on that point, and that's fine too.
You'll know that when this government --
Mr Reid: I don't choose to disagree. I just at this point really don't know enough about it.
Mr Bartolucci: Okay. When this government came into being, it moved, as you know, the profits from citizenship, culture and tourism to the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. Are you in agreement with that move, first of all?
Mr Reid: I assume that's a government decision and I have no comment on it.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Mr Reid, good morning. As members of the committee know, I ask all intended appointees who come before us generally this question: Are you now or have you ever been a member of a political party?
Mr Reid: No, I'm not, nor have I been.
Mr Silipo: Have you made donations to any political party?
Mr Reid: No, I have not.
Mr Silipo: Can I ask you, in coming back to the role of the board, and particularly the role that you see yourself playing as the chair of this board, on a couple of the issues that you've been discussing with my Liberal colleagues, first of all, on this question of VLTs -- I guess I just want to be clear -- I understand and I think we know that the government hasn't made a decision yet about what role the Ontario Lottery Corp will play, if any, in this. But I'm interested in understanding more clearly what advice on this you either have given or would give to the government, particularly as chair of the Ontario Lottery Corp. I got the sense earlier on that what you were suggesting was more on the side that there should be a separate body looking after that, but I want to make sure I didn't misinterpret what you said.
Mr Reid: You're asking me again, and so I answer correctly, I seek to understand the base of the question. If you're asking me as the potential chair of the lottery corporation, I'll answer that way. I would look at it then from the business perspective and my advice to the government would be, if this is decided to be done and it is to be rolled out, I would try to do it in the most cost-efficient way possible. It strikes me that you might want to think then about how much could be done in the private way, starting with a greenfield mentality which you have in the case of the VLTs but not in the case of the lottery corporation. You've got an old corporation; you've got a greenfield with VLTs.
Starting from scratch, what is mission critical at the beginning, what is Criminal Code requirement at the beginning, what then could be outsourced, how much you then have to keep inside in a human structural way and then how much of it might you already run through the existing hands and feet of the lottery corporation personnel? I think you'd want to work your way through it and my advice to government, if asked, would be to go through that process of thinking before you make a decision.
Mr Silipo: Is it fair to say when you say looking at it in terms of your position as the intended chair and looking at it from the business perspective, you would favour more beginning with doing as much of the work as possible within the private sector?
Mr Reid: If that is the most cost-efficient and effective way to do it, and I don't know the answer to that yet. I haven't examined it.
1020
Mr Silipo: What about this notion that you were discussing earlier, which I guess I would put in a slightly different way, but I think addressing very much the same issue which is, what is the overall corporate responsibility of a body such as the Ontario Lottery Corp in terms of whether we maintain it essentially as a public entity with the employees who work for it as public employees, albeit obviously of the agency, as opposed to privatizing a service like this?
Mr Reid: I would assume the role of the chair is a fiduciary one as opposed to a management responsibility. In other words, the chair is not in operating management, it's more of a fiduciary responsibility, and therefore my responsibility is to understand the policy directive to the agency, if you will, from government and then in a fiduciary way to work with management so that we unfold it in the most effective and efficient way possible. Taking that stream of logic back to government, if the direction is to outsource, to do it in the most humane and effective way possible, then I would, in a fiduciary role, work with management to put them on that path and make sure they accomplish that goal.
Mr Silipo: Your answer seems to indicate to me that you see your role as a member of the board and as chair simply as one of facilitating the government's policy direction rather than trying to affect what that policy direction might be.
Mr Reid: Maybe as I learn the role I'll understand that I have more of an upward opportunity. To the degree that that's there, I would partake in that. But at this time I really don't know that that role is there. Maybe it has been historically. You gentlemen have more experience with the particular chair, but I don't know what that participative role has been in the past.
Mr Silipo: You've served as a member of the board. You're currently on the board, as I understand it.
Mr Reid: Yes, I am indeed.
Mr Silipo: So I'm a little bit puzzled that you would not be aware of that other part of the role. Is that because it hasn't been exercised by your predecessor or you don't see that as part of the function, or what?
Mr Reid: I've not visualized it in action nor have I heard anything verbalized or seen written where the existing chairman has seemed to partake of that role. That may just be a lack of knowledge on my part.
Mr Silipo: Can you comment on your sense of how the lottery corporation distributes its proceeds, particularly the concerns that have been raised by some groups such as various amateur sports organizations which have complained that their share of the profits has diminished over the years. I'd just be interested in your thoughts on that.
Mr Reid: I was asked that question the last time I was here and made a response then and I don't think I would change it very much. As a baseball and hockey coach of young boys, I would love to see them have every dollar that we think they need to grow as athletes and as young people. I don't know exactly how many dollars go to that today.
I know there is a process, I guess, where government decides what percentages go to which of the various outlets they fund. But as I said last time, it strikes me that whatever funds go to athletes, whatever goes to the Trillium, whatever goes to the hospitals, they are all good purposes. But if someone comes along with a better thought, a better lightbulb, a better idea of something that could help the province better, I think everybody should listen to that.
Mr Silipo: It interests me particularly when I think back to the basis upon which this whole thing was started back, I guess, in the mid-1970s, which was that the revenues of this were not to be seen as a replacement for government funding of essential services, that in fact things like amateur sport were deemed to be, while important, not essential, I suppose in some people's minds at the time, to the running of the system when you compare, for example, to a hospital. Yet what we've seen over the years has been more and more of the funding being turned towards funding some of the "essential" services as opposed to the other services. I'd be interested in your sense of that.
Mr Reid: I don't have the information to understand which government made the original decisions, which government changed it and which government allowed it to continue in the way it is today. Whether it was solely the current government or previous governments or transitional governments, I'm not aware of that. But I think at any point in time intelligent people would always sit down and reinvestigate where those funds go, but that's a consideration of the House perhaps more than it is the management of the lottery corporation. I think our job is to make sure we run it in the most effective and efficient manner that we can to maximize the flow. The decision on where the flows go, while as a citizen I might have some interest, I think really is not the purview of the chairman of this corporation.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Thank you, Mr Reid, for coming in. I want to continue on the revenue side of things. Certainly in any type of corporation, whatever it may be, revenue generation is one of the keys. What I'm going to ask you is, and you have touched on it a bit this morning, do you feel there are additional ways to generate revenue from the corporation that could be put into health care, social services, this sort of thing?
Mr Reid: Again the answer would have to be two halves. If you're talking about the existing pure Ontario Lottery Corp and its mandate as it exists, yes, there are other new gains that one can, if you will, structure, reinvent that can put more revenue and the like. Some of the games age. It's the nature of the business. You put a game out and it runs 10 years and there's less interest in playing it than there was 10 years ago. You need constantly to be doing market research to understand that and then changing that game or putting in a substitute game which can bring the revenue line up. Certainly there's the modification, the reinvention or the creation of new games.
Then there's the ability to change what is called the gross margin. The Chairman, who's a former retailer, will understand gross margin, but it's basically after your direct costs are taken out. If you look at the lottery corporation over the last series of years, the direct costs have been going up and the gross margin has been declining. I think the responsibility of the management team is to do something about that and change that mix so you not only get a volume growth, you get a margin growth at the same time. There are ample opportunities to drive that top line.
Mr Stewart: I think it's something that goes on in business a lot where the margin is going down.
Mr Reid: Unfortunately.
Mr Stewart: That's for sure.
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): Has there been a review done in the last 10 years that has resulted in some restructuring like the private sector has undergone?
Mr Reid: If memory serves me, last year there was an exercise that was put in place and I think there was a reduction of the expense. Please, allow me to arrange this one. I'm not exact about the number, but I think it was somewhere between $20 million and $30 million of expenses taken out of the corporation. As a businessman, I would consider that to be a 50,000-foot review. If you're asking it in the context of the finite drill-down review that businesses are having to go through on a constant basis today, I don't think that drill-down has been done.
There's a role and mandate review which I think happened in the last few months with government, with perhaps some external expertise helping them have a look at all that. Then management and the board asked to do a benchmark look at how the lottery corporation looks on all lines of opportunity compared to the large lotteries in Canada and all those through the United States. They have that data now and I think they've identified some opportunities to do better.
Mr Tascona: In 1996 there was a review undertaken?
Mr Reid: That's correct.
Mr Tascona: That dealt with reduction of expenses. Has that resulted in a review of the manpower requirements?
Mr Reid: I think that's under way at the moment.
Mr Tascona: Is the manpower going to be reduced in any way?
Mr Reid: I think the answer to that has to probably be yes. You have to understand what the lottery corporation is all about. It's in the business of maximizing revenue. I think when you do a review, and if you do it through external parties, they can easily lose sight of the fact that it only takes a minimum disruption in an operation to lose the revenue line. If you lose the revenue line, the expense reduction you save is fool's gold. At the same time the lottery corporation's integrity is everything. The games must be up, they must be functioning, they must have the answers. The fiscal control and the technological control must be at a high peak.
I think you have to go through the review that has been done and see their starting point and then try to look at, if we make sure that revenue continues to go up, margins continue to improve, the service level we provide is as good or better than it has ever been. If we keep the fiscal integrity of the corporation alive, then what is the art of the possible by changing technology or process? What is the art of the possible for being more efficient in a human way? That has not yet been done in final form.
Mr Tascona: Within the staffing of the Ontario Lottery Corp, have there been any particular classifications that have been targeted for the numbers that you want to reduce by?
Mr Reid: I guess in a global way the answer to that would be yes.
Mr Tascona: Which ones are those?
Mr Reid: All levels.
1030
Mr Tascona: So as a targeted figure in terms of the number of manpower that wants to be reduced, has that been set?
Mr Reid: It has not been set in my mind, no. I think they've got some global ranges in their minds but if you're asking me specifically if I have the role as a fiduciary role of working with management, I don't think management should commit a number, whether that be human count or expenses, until they've really got the finite evidence base to say, "We could run this corporation better in this way with these numbers." To do that is unfair to the people.
Mr Tascona: What's the global range?
Mr Reid: My guess is you're probably a corporation of about 750 people today. I think the art of the possible ranges somewhere between 350 and 750.
Mr Tascona: In terms of the remaining staff?
Mr Reid: Yes. That would be all locations, whether it be Toronto, whether it be Sault Ste Marie or wherever it is. You know they're in two or three locations.
Mr Tascona: Yes, the entire operation for each location.
The Chair: Any other questions?
Mr Baird: I just want to follow up on that. I've been led to believe, following up from Mr Tascona's comments as well, that the corporation is somewhat overstaffed, I think even by its own admission in your comments here today. I understand there are almost 50 people in the communications branch. Is the corporation --
Mr Crozier: That's as bad as the Premier's office, isn't it?
Mr Baird: He wouldn't even have that many. I think it's four or five.
Is it in need of an operational review, particularly with the staffing, in your expert opinion?
Mr Reid: I think the fair answer to you is, the entire corporation is in need of a review and as you do that, you look at every single component. I think if you take an individual element which has the appearance of being overstaffed, ie, communications, you'd best find out exactly what they do because sometimes what they do has little to do with their titling.
You need to go and look at the total organization and, as you do that, you begin to drill down; you find where the opportunities are everywhere. In communications the probability exists is that 50 may be a little high, if that's the number, and I don't know if that is the number. You have better information than I do.
The Chair: Any other questions? If not, Mr Reid, thank you very much for appearing before the committee this morning. We appreciate your responses.
JEFFERY LYONS
Review of intended appointment, selected by the third party: Jeffery Stephen Lyons, intended appointee as member, Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board.
The Chair: Mr Lyons, welcome to the committee this morning. We appreciate your attendance here. If you have any opening comments you'd like to make, now is the time to do it.
Mr Jeffery Lyons: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just briefly, I think perhaps I know some of the members and I assume they've had some background material on me, so I'll just indicate that I am a lawyer by profession, that I started in my early days of the profession being a consumer activist and I think that's what led me into many positions in municipal politics. Believe it or not, I was the individual who pioneered class actions in Canada. Some of you, perhaps you, Mr Chair, would remember the rusty Ford case and the Firenza case etc.
Then I got myself into other areas of law, particularly insurance law, and then got involved in municipal politics. I've served a number of offices in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, including as vice-chairman of the zoo board, the environmental control board of North York, the North York Performing Arts Centre, and then I was on the Toronto Transit Commission for 11 years and was the chair the last two years when they had citizen appointments.
That's my background. I've served in other capacities, including in my own profession, but I just thought I would give that summary.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Lyons. We'll start the questioning or comments with the official opposition.
Mr Bartolucci: Thanks very much and welcome. Reading your résumé, certainly you have an extensive background and now, with the municipal component, it almost looks like the perfect picture. Are you in favour of Bill 105's recommendations with regard to the board structure ensuring that the municipalities have the predominant number of members on a board?
Mr Lyons: I agree with that. Actually, even if it wasn't in the bill it would be something I would have foreseen because if they're paying the majority, almost all of the budget, then why shouldn't they have a majority of the members? When I was at the Toronto Transit Commission and we still got 25% of our capital funding from the province, all our appointments were from the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. It makes quite perfectly logical sense, to me anyway.
Mr Bartolucci: Likewise, having sat on the police commission for several years it made sense to me back then as well as a municipal councillor, but obviously this change will benefit municipalities quite extensively so they have some control. What about the provisions in Bill 105 with regard to police oversight? Are you in favour of the changes there, and if you have any reservations, could you please outline them to us.
Mr Lyons: First of all, like everything else, you start to read up on it -- this appointment is 10 days old or something like that I've been aware of it, and I was probably more aware of Bill 103 than I was of Bill 105, but with respect to that, I think there's a streamlining. There was an interesting article in Mr Stein's newspaper yesterday that said there's probably a happy balance, because both sides aren't happy.
I don't really agree with Alan Borovoy, though. I don't think every complaint has to be monitored. I think they do have a structure in place. We're not dealing with an illiterate society; we're dealing with people who are informed. If they have an appeal, they can make that appeal and they won't be intimidated. At least this is my belief in this society, and that there are still legal aid clinics. They're not as well funded but they're still out there to help them. We still believe in doing some pro bono work. Lawyers will do that for citizens. At least I'm a believer in that.
Mr Bartolucci: Are you a proponent of community-based policing?
Mr Lyons: Yes, within this community in particular; in the most multicultural city in the world, yes, definitely.
Mr Bartolucci: What do you think is the greatest challenge to the particular board you're going to be sitting on?
Mr Lyons: There are several: budgetary constraints, a big issue today. I think people in a society really worry about their -- I was at home talking to my daughter last night and she said, "Why are you doing this?" She's 17 years of age. She said: "Why do you want to be on the police services board? It was better when you were on the Toronto Transit Commission." I said, "Merrill, what would you worry more about today? Would you worry about transit or would you worry about the police?" and she said, "The police." I said: "That's really what the problem is. In society you can live without transit. You'll have to find to another effective way even if it's a bicycle. But policing is a major problem."
People worry about their security and also people worry about whether their rights have been infringed upon and it's always that careful balancing. I think as a police board you're always trying to monitor that considerably to make sure it works. If people lose faith in our policing and the policing isn't done well, then the society really does suffer to a greater extent than if, say, the transit system isn't working well. To me, it's the most important board in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. I've always felt that, even when I sat on the TTC. I always thought that the major board that had the greatest impact was the police services board.
Mr Bartolucci: Mr Lyons, I agree with you. Whether it be Toronto, Sudbury, Sault Ste Marie or wherever, I honestly am convinced that the police services board is the most important board in any municipality. But I don't think the budgetary difficulties that any municipality has are the greatest concern at the police services board. I'm a strong believer in community-based policing. I know it's extensive already in Toronto, but would you expand community-based policing in Toronto?
Mr Lyons: I just looked at this briefly, but the police services board have their annual report. I just picked it up yesterday because I had my first meeting with their chair, Maureen Prinsloo. They have this Toronto 2000, which is a new approach towards community-based policing.
Just my overview of it is that the expansion of it is because we have so many ethnic cultural groupings. We may have the Somali community or some community like that where we may have to be doing more in that community and we haven't really -- it's so many communities. It's expansion of the program into a number of communities and expanding the program itself, not only having different responsibilities for the police, but the outreach programs into the schools. Saying all this, my knowledge is a bit embryonic. I've got to be honest with you, I'm not sure I'm that knowledgable about it, that's just a view that I have.
Mr Bartolucci: Well, from listening to you, I think it's going to evolve into a very healthy child. Thank you.
1040
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Good morning, Mr Lyons. I think you almost answered a question I was going to ask, but I'll just do it straight up. Did you seek this position -- because you indicated, obviously, an interest in serving on it -- but did you actually seek it?
Mr Lyons: I'll tell you how it happened. I had lunch one day with the Metro chairman. He had resigned and I took him out for lunch because I felt badly for him, he's a good friend of mine, and he said -- I just told this to David Stein over here -- "Why don't you seek the position of police services board?" I said, "Why?" He said, "Father Lombardi's no longer being appointed." I said, "Really? Gee, that sounds interesting," so I phoned the Premier's office and indicated my interest.
I don't know if Alan Tonks would appreciate me telling this story, but I don't think that --
Mr Gravelle: Well, it's on the record now.
Mr Lyons: I went out to help him over lunch, to see what I could do to make his life a little more pleasant --
Mr Silipo: He got you into this thing.
Mr Lyons: -- and he said to me afterwards, "This was a strange lunch."
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): He doesn't need any help now. He's got a safe job now.
Mr Silipo: You took care of that.
Mr Gravelle: Back to Bill 105, if I might, because I think what you said is interesting. If indeed it does strike a balance -- as in Mr Stein's article, which I read as well, which was interesting -- that may be the case. I take it you've had a chance to look at it -- at least somebody told you -- do you think there are any changes that need to be made to it in terms of amendments? There are some interesting controversies on both sides of the whole police complaints issue. From a police officer's point of view, I know they have concerns about the definition, for example, of "unsatisfactory work performance."
Mr Lyons: Yes. I know the police are not happy with that, although actually I'm happy to see it in there. It has been an issue, and I know the police may not be happy with it, but you know what? I wish we had that sometimes in the TTC, when we had unsatisfactory work performance, but you get yourself into these fights with the unions and I'm not so sure I would do that. But I'm saying I can understand it.
Again, I can tell you I have some knowledge of it but only from what I've read. I've not heard it from the police perspective. I must say to you I've never met Chief Boothby. Socially maybe once or twice I've bumped into him, but I don't have any really --
Mr Gravelle: So you think the term "unsatisfactory work performance" is a useful term in terms of those who are meting out the discipline, I guess you're saying. My concern is that, unless you define what it is, obviously there can be wide boundaries in terms of what that unsatisfactory work performance is. It could be not handing out enough parking tickets. So you know, we want to --
Mr Lyons: Oh, I see what you're saying. No, you're right --
Mr Gravelle: I know a lot of the people on the ground, the police officers, are very concerned about that particular definition.
Mr Lyons: No, if it was parking tickets -- my view is that unsatisfactory work performance may be somebody who's spending too much time in the doughnut shop or something like that.
Mr Gravelle: But don't you think that makes the case that it should be, it needs to be defined?
Mr Baird: There's David Stein taking notes.
Mr Gravelle: I'm sure everybody on the beat is going to appreciate that comment you made. The question really is then: Do you think that probably needs to be defined because obviously there's a pretty wide definition, and is it a fair thing to have in the bill phrased that way?
Mr Lyons: Let me say that you've raised a good point. Is it an unfair thing to have in the bill? At this point I wouldn't say I disagree with it, but you've raised an interesting spectre if it's parking tickets. I'd want to know more. Let me answer your question by saying, I'm not unhappy with it.
Mr Gravelle: I don't know either, but it's obviously one of those things.
Mr Silipo: Mr Lyons, I think your story about how you got this appointment is telling. I'm not sure how many other people would have been able to simply call up the Premier's office and end up in front of this committee, but that actually was going to be my first question to you, not how you got the appointment, but what it is that would drive a Jeff Lyons to want to become part of the police services board.
Mr Lyons: I've always done public service in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. I sit on a number of public boards now, and I probably, like you, Mr Silipo, really love public life. Do I seek public office? No, I don't, probably for a few reasons, one maybe starts at home, and I very much enjoy doing public service. The most enjoyable years I had were when I was the chairman of the TTC.
What makes me want to do this? I don't undertake a task unless I do it well because at the end of the day you might as well not do it if people are going to talk negatively of you. I have no other answer than -- I'm sure at home if I told my wife I wasn't doing this, she'd be happier, but listen, why do you seek public office? Why does everybody around this room? We do it because we like it, and I like it.
Mr Silipo: Fair enough. Can I just pursue a couple of other lines of questions? I don't know if you were here before, but I ask everyone that comes before us this question or couple of questions. I think I know some of the answers with respect to you, but just to have it on the record: Are you now a member or have you ever been a member of a political party?
Mr Lyons: Yes, I have.
Mr Silipo: And which party?
Mr Lyons: The Progressive Conservative Party.
Mr Silipo: Okay, and it's fair to say that you have also been involved in fund-raising for the party?
Mr Lyons: Yes, I have for about 30 years.
Mr Silipo: Okay. You touched a little bit with my Liberal colleagues on the whole role of dealing with complaints, but to also deal with it in terms of this question of the duty to cooperate, I ask your thoughts specifically on that question in terms of how it has been dealt with under Bill 105 particularly.
On the issue of the duty to cooperate, the concern is when there is an incident that involves the police officer using his or her firearm and there's an investigation, there is a question still about whether police officers should cooperate with the SIU, whether they are the subject officers or not, how you sort out that issue whether they are the subject of complaints or whether they are witnesses to something that happened. I'd just be interested in your approach and your view on that issue.
Mr Lyons: First, actually I just saw it last night, there was another incident in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto on the special investigations unit and the question of the subject officers and the witness officers and the fact that the subject officers feel that they're giving up their rights. I understand that the Solicitor General has convened a task force of the stakeholders and that they're going to come up with some type of protocol over the summer, although I don't know how confident they are.
I think there should be a protocol in place. Obviously what happens now isn't working satisfactorily. This issue of "reasonable time," when you have about two weeks to meet with a representative of the SIU unit, it may be too long a period of time. My views on the charter are that obviously the police association has never really risen or has not really taken that issue to court, although they obviously feel they have an issue with respect to incrimination.
I think the legislation, the protocols etc, should go ahead and that the charter argument has always been a backstopper. That's my view as a lawyer. I never looked at the charter as a prerequisite to making a decision. It's out there to protect people but it's a backstopper.
Mr Silipo: Beyond the protocol, can we talk also a little bit, please, about the whole question of policing in Metropolitan Toronto as it relates to visible minorities. As you know, that has been an issue that has been unfortunately ongoing in Metro Toronto and there are still problems that haven't been resolved, at least as I see them. I'm interested in your thoughts on what you would see as your role as a member of the police services board in addressing that issue.
Mr Lyons: First of all, as a member of the police services board, I certainly wouldn't be trying to micro-manage the police department. If we did, we'd certainly have a lot of problems. I view the role we will have on the police services board would be setting policy and setting standards among others -- but those are the major issues that as far as these issues of -- what was it, racism that you mentioned?
Mr Silipo: I didn't mention it, but yes.
1050
Mr Lyons: That's what I assumed you did. Do I know that exists? Or does it exist? Or do individuals exist? Obviously there are bad apples in every barrel, so there must be some of it, but at this point I don't know any more than that to comment on it. Would I be concerned about it? Yes, I would be. Would you try to set in place certain policies? We're working with the police chief and his staff, so certainly you would. I don't know if I've answered your question.
Mr Silipo: In fairness, I gave you a fairly broad question. Let me be a bit more specific and bring one of my concerns -- in terms of your coming forward for this position -- and put it right out on the table and have you respond to it.
We talked earlier about your fund-raising activities. My understanding is that at least a couple of the people you were very actively involved in supporting and were fund-raising for were people like Paul Godfrey and June Rowlands, both of whom sat on the police services board and both of whom showed, in my view, an approach that was at the very least not helpful in dealing with issues of policing as they affected visible minorities. I'm concerned about what you bring to the board. Do you bring that kind of approach or do you bring a different approach to the board?
Mr Lyons: Both of these individuals, one in particular is a very good friend of mine and I don't apologize for that, but I can tell you our views of the world are quite different. I've always considered myself -- and I see the colleagues here from the Progressive Conservative Party -- a pink Tory. That's my view of the world if you have a definition for where I fit.
My view is that I care about people -- I really do. At the same time we're trying to run a safe city. That's the balancing in my mind. I certainly would not want to see the little guy have any more problems of law than the wealthy or people who are able to have legal counsel. That's my world. Both of these people, June Rowlands, a lot of her positions I would not agree with. I did support her for mayor, but not on all the policies. She might have been running against other candidates I approved of less.
I was appointed to the Ontario Place board by your government. I'm obviously a member of one party but I think I cross party lines in many ways. I've never really been so partisan as not to be like that.
Mr Silipo: I've certainly sat in this committee and voted in favour of appointments of people to various bodies who are members of the Conservative Party. That's not for me in and of itself a deciding issue. What is is the whole concept of what you bring to this board as opposed to any other boards. I see a difference between this board and the Ontario Place board.
The question of policing as it affects minority rights is for me a major concern, particularly when I see the change that's happening among the membership of the police services board. As you pointed out, you're replacing Father Lombardi. Laura Rowe, I gather, is not being reappointed; the previous appointment has been replaced by someone else. I don't see at this point anyone on this board who has any real experience in dealing with the issues of policing as they relate to visible minorities. That remains for me a concern so I need to hear from you what you would do about that.
The Chair: This will be the last question.
Mr Lyons: Let me answer that. I didn't realize that's where you're coming from. First of all, I have a fairly extensive background in municipal boards. I understand how they operate. I understand the dynamics, the politics, and that has always very important. Second, I was a bencher of the law society for eight years and chaired the professional standards committee, did a lot of discipline hearings, understand problems. Lawyers are obviously different, if only on a professional basis, than policemen, but there are a lot of similar issues.
I've been involved on a number of business boards. I think I understand how a business has to operate. What I'm bringing to this is my vast experience. Frankly, when I listened to the chair yesterday, there are a lot of issues, budget being one of them, that I think I could add substantially to. Maybe I don't have a particular community that I represent, because I look to myself to represent all the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, and so should every civilian member.
What I'm really saying to you is I have a lot of experience I'm bringing to the table. I think they need that. That's my opinion, or I wouldn't be putting my name forward. I'm not doing it to say, "Listen. I'm a member of the police services board. Here's my badge," or something. That's it. I really think I can make the difference. If I can't make the difference, then I shouldn't be doing it.
Mr Tascona: Thank you for attending today, Mr Lyons. I think I'm going to follow along the lines of what Mr Silipo was getting at in terms of your interest in serving the public. As an intended appointee to the Metro Toronto Police Services Board, would you share with the committee whose interests you will be representing on the board?
Mr Lyons: Whose interests I'd be representing on the board? I'd be representing, to my mind, the public's interest. Although I'm appointed by the province -- and ultimately it may be that these appointments are all made by the municipalities, although there just may be a difference in numbers -- I don't look at myself as a representative of any level of government. I see myself representing the public. That's my answer.
Mr Stewart: Thank you, Mr Lyons. I don't know whether my question is redundant but you made the comment, "Do it right or don't do it at all," which is a belief I have. I look at your background and you are at present on 14 different committees, which is unbelievable. Certainly being appointed to the police services board will be a fairly involving job, and you're still practising law. Do you really think you have the time to do this job and do it well, because I believe that's where your thinking is.
Mr Lyons: This is far more extensive than anything else in my résumé there. I'll be leaving the Ontario Place board shortly anyway. Some of these come and go, and I've made that decision. I was worried that when I undertook it, it would even be greater. I thought they'd have a lot of discipline hearings. I know from law society days that could be weeks. It isn't as extensive, as I realized. I was prepared for that.
Mr Stewart: You mean you --
Mr Lyons: Listen, as I say, if you're going to get into it, do it; if you're not prepared to do it, don't get into it. That's all. Some of my friends might say, "Why are you doing it?" But I'm doing it.
Mr Stewart: I guess my concern was whether some of these ones you're on now are going to be finished in the next little while.
Mr Lyons: Some of them will. In the federal situation I'm sitting on the Via Rail board. I don't know how long that will last.
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): As a former police services board member myself, there always appear to be -- not only appear, there are -- some difficulties between the board and sometimes the municipal council with regard to funding of the police services board or the policing level that you have in your municipality. If you encountered this particular difficulty in Toronto, how would you handle it?
Mr Lyons: With the budget? I'd find out what the problem was and I would review with our chair, and I probably might go to speak to some of the municipal politicians myself, because that's a strength I bring to the table: I know a lot of them. Would I be effective at lobbying for their support? Yes, I would be. It's a benefit that the police services board will have. I don't apologize for that. I think that's a strength.
1100
Mr Beaubien: What about the policing needs of the community. How would you balance that? For instance, sometimes you may be lobbied by different groups to increase the level of policing in certain areas as opposed to other areas. I come from a small community, so I am sure there are probably some unique problems in Metro Toronto that you would not encounter in a smaller community.
But you mention about minorities, different backgrounds, and I am sure that some group of people may need a higher level of community policing. How would you arrive at an acceptable level of policing that would cater to the needs of the people in the community?
Mr Lyons: This would probably be something like a deputation item. You'd be hearing what their concerns were and you'd want to hear from the staff. Hopefully, what you try to do is balance out what their needs are and what resources you have and what you think is appropriate.
Obviously there are situations such as you've just described which need greater policing, but you really have to get the whole story. That may be one version and the police may have another version and our budget may have another version in the sense of what you can do. You work it through. You listen to them. I've listened to them for years when they wanted to move a bus stop or have a new bus route. You know, it didn't always work, but you tried to make everybody happy. There are the political needs. You've got to deal with that reality. I understand.
Mr Beaubien: So you find there is a balance on both sides.
Mr Lyons: You've got to balance it. It's the art of compromise, the art of the possible and you work at it.
The Chair: Mr Beaubien, did you have any other questions? If not, that completes the questioning. Mr Lyons, thank you very much for coming before the committee. We appreciate your attendance.
Mr Lyons: Thank you, Mr Chair.
The Chair: We will now deal with the concurrence of the two intended appointments.
Mr Baird: I move concurrence in the appointment of Tom Reid to the Ontario Lottery Corp.
The Chair: Do you wish to speak to it now?
Mr Baird: Just briefly, I think he's an outstanding individual who would bring a tremendous amount of business experience to what's a pretty important corporation with pretty sizeable revenues. That type of experience and expertise would obviously serve the board well, and there's no trace of political partisanship to this appointment. It's the individual's background, I think, that speaks for itself.
Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, with some reluctance I am going to vote against the appointment. I thought I should explain why. I found Mr Reid's sense of not seeing an active or advocacy role as part of the position really lacking for someone to take on this kind of position. It's something that gives me a little bit of trouble because certainly, as chair of an important corporation like this one, I would have expected something a bit more active than simply saying, "My job is to just carry out what the government wants me to do," kind of attitude. So, with some regret, I find myself not able to support the appointment.
The Chair: Any other comments on Mr Baird's motion? If not, are you ready for the question? All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried. Thank you for that, Mr Baird.
Mr Baird: I also move concurrence on the appointment of Jeffery Lyons to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board.
The Chair: Do wish to speak to it?
Mr Baird: Just some brief comments. I think Mr Lyons's extensive background in the community was best summarized when Mr Silipo asked him why he wanted to serve on the police services board. This is an individual who has given to his community, whether it's in the arts or sport or through his involvement in the Law Society of Upper Canada, a tremendous commitment. His skills and expertise have been recognized by governments of all stripes.
I noticed in his background papers that he was appointed to the board of directors of Ontario Place by the previous government, in addition to the board of the International Trade Commission in 1994, so obviously those skills and that expertise and the background of Mr Lyons were well acknowledged, even by the previous government. I think the community would be extremely well served to have someone of his skill sets and community background and expertise to serve on the police services board.
Mr Silipo: Again, Chair, I am going to be voting against this appointment for different reasons, so I want to also put these on the record. I don't disagree with Mr Baird's assessment of Mr Lyons as somebody who's very capable and somebody who has been active in a variety of ways in the community.
The one area that troubled me about his answers to the questions was that, while I think he certainly reflected some understanding of some of the concerns that I, among others, raised on the question of policing as it affects visible minorities, I didn't hear enough to convince me that in fact he sees that as a major issue that needs to be addressed. I may be wrong in that, but that's the conclusion I've come to.
Second, I have a broader concern as it relates not so much to Mr Lyons himself, but what I think the government is doing with this last set of appointments to this board. It is changing significantly, with the last two appointments we have seen to this board, the kind of attention that needs to be paid to that very fine balance of continuing to support and protect our police officers and at the same time understanding and being active in responding to the concerns of visible minorities in particular who feel that their police board and their police officers are not always acting in the appropriate way.
I think the way to answer that is to have on the board people who are prepared to take that very tough issue on in a very direct way. What I've seen from the government over the last couple of appointments is they replace people who, with all the problems they have got themselves into, were not afraid to raise those issues and to have those issues addressed. There are people who are certainly leaning more towards not seeing the importance of those issues being addressed. That's why I can't support Mr Lyons's appointment, although I appreciate many of his answers to the questions and wish him well if he's appointed to this position.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Silipo. Any other comments on Mr Baird's motion? Are you ready for the question? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried. Thank you for that.
That completes our business for the morning. There will be no meeting next Wednesday, of course, because it's constituency week, and you will be notified about the following week. Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned at 1108.